I thought that some Tom the Dancing Bug couldn't be bad:
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/02/tom-the-dancing-bug-the-nra-o.html

Well, changing the facts to suit your political preferences seems to be par for the course these days, so I suppose we shouldn't really be surprised.

Thanks, Ursa

Outrageous and disgusting, the NRA'a political lackeys busting their asses to hide the damaging gun related information from the public.

As the article says, it's one thing to take issue with the findings of the research, but to silence the research itself is despicable.

Oops. My bad. Here you go:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

Ursa-
Link to the JAMA article?

Two firefighters dead at the scene, two in the hospital, one in critical condition. Four houses burned to the ground, three of them because firefighters couldn't get to them while the shooter was at large and picking off rescue personnel. The shooter appears to be dead of a gunshot wound, probably self-inflicted, but reports are unclear at this point.

I went for a hike on the trails this morning on Irondequoit Bay, on the opposite end while all this was unfolding unbeknownst to me. It seemed so quiet and peaceful. The crime scene is less than 6 miles (10 km for our non-U.S. readers) from my house, and 5 mi/8 km from where I was hiking. If I'd had a pair of binoculars with me, I'd have been able to see the houses burning from the parking lot in the park.

I have the feeling that our community is about to be shoved to the forefront of the gun violence debate.

I'm kind of numb to it at this point and I don't expect any real changes to come out of the incident. The conversation has been had before; Second Amendment rights always trump individual rights and public safety.

It is absurd to claim that owning a gun for self-defense makes you safer. The numbers say exactly the opposite. Having a gun in the house means a threefold greater chance of being the victim of gun violence. Carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense means that you are almost four times as likely to be shot as an unarmed person. And this article in the JAMA lays out some facts about deliberate Congressional suppression of gun violence research that are almost beyond belief.

Given the statistics it is difficult to see what, exactly, gun advocates are defending. The right to be shot? It certainly isn't personal or public safety.

It appears the shooter set a trap for the first responders he killed/wounded.

I expect the official NRA spin presented by Wayne La Pierre as the only effective solution will be to arm every fire fighter so they can shoot their way into the scene of a fire.

The NRA mantra, shout it out: MORE GUNS!...MORE GUNS!...MORE GUNS!

http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Gunfire-kills-young-children-daily-in-US-4143541.php

I'd have a lot more respect for the NRA if they would come right and state their position honestly, which is: "The right to own personal firearms takes precedence over any other consideration. We understand that it is not possible to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Our position is that gun massacres are an acceptable consequence of the right to gun ownership in a free society".

Considering the general reaction to their statement about the Newtown shootings, I think the NRA would be well advised to just keep their mouths shut. If any legislation actually comes out of all this, I think it'll be as much because of that press conference as the actual attack.

Two firefighters shot dead, two more with gunshot wounds. Wonder how the NRA will make this nothing to do with shitty gun laws?

"The answer to increasing levels of poisoning murders is to provide everybody with poison" - The National Poison Association

And in today's news, firefighters in my home town are at this very moment letting a house burn out of control because when they responded to the alarm, somebody took a shot at them and sent one man to the hospital. The police have not yet secured the area, and an adjacent home is now ablaze.

This sort of shit needs to stop, but I honestly have no idea how that can be done.

And the NRA finally opens their mouth.

And I threw up in mine.

I mean, this was just horrifically bad. From (paraphrased, though not nearly as much as you might think) "an armed guard in every kindergarten!" to "disturbed people have demons!" all the way to "guns don't kill people, video games do!" and my personal favorite "gun-free school zones are just one stop shops for crazed lunatics to rack up kills!", and a gratuitous bonus shot against foreign aid (?!) for all political scientists who hadn't killed themselves yet while listening to the speech.

He only made one point I completely agree with--the media is egregiously bad at reporting on guns, to the point where they clearly know nothing about proper terminology or facts. It's embarrassing. Google your shit, reporters, seriously. Learn what "semi-automatic" means (hint: semiautos do not and cannot "spray" bullets), and no, a .223 Remington is not a large caliber bullet (or a particularly powerful rifle round). Stupid factual and terminology errors undercut any ability to expect people to take anything you say as accurate.

Other than that, if this is what they have to say, the NRA really should just sit down and shut the fuck up. It would do less damage to say nothing. As a person who is very skeptical of gun regulations proceeding from events like these--hard case make bad law!--I am really disgusted that the people who are supposed to be a reasonable counterweight to the panicked overreaction in legislation instead come out with this bull.

I think we may have a new winner for the Dumbest Reason Gun Control Isn't Really Necessary prize: Texas State Rep. Kyle Kacal apparently thinks that the real threat isn't assault rifles in the hands of the deeply disturbed, but ping pong. Yes, I said ping pong. Oh, and flat screen TV's.

"I've heard of people being killed playing ping-pong—ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns," Kacal says. "Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/texas-lawmaker-ping-pongs-deadlier-guns-211551404--politics.html

The issue of gun control here is the U.S. is already dead in the water. At most, we might see a reinstatement of the 1994-2004 ban on assault weaponry.

I see from perusing the news that (if our infotainment industry is to be believed) the Connecticut massacre has given a big boost to gun sales this week.

Here we go. If arming teachers and underpaid security guards doesn't work...we can just train the little ones to commit hari kari.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/newsweek-wins-worst-newtown-reaction-award.html

Does the UK or Australia have this toxic, almost religious love of guns that the United States does?

What about Mexico? Mexico basically makes private gun ownership impossible.

Has the UK and Australia had an almost continuous state of "war", which means soliders with easy access to post-service weaponry?

Does the UK or Australia have a massive "War on Drugs" which has led to high levels of smuggling and again easy access to guns?

What about cultural levels of violence over the long term?

I am not being blandly skeptical here. I am just not sure there is any political will at all, even now, to be as draconian as you suggest. And, the strong anti-government traditions, especially in rural areas, suggests to me that it will be a lot harder than you think to wring the millions and millions of guns out of the system.

I wish it was different, but I fear it is not.

"there is no way gun control or reduction would work"

Citation needed.

Google "Dunblane massacre". You know what the UK did after that school shooting? Banned all automatic and semi automatic cartridge ammunition weapons, banned every handgun bigger and faster than a single action .22, locked down gun ownership tight so that to get hold of a shotgun, a .22 pistol or a hunting rifle, you have to jump through some serious hoops, get past some serious vetting, and demonstrate some serious competence. And you know what? We have not had a school shooting, or any other form of gun massacre, since then. That was in 1996, by the way.

Now Google "Port Arthut massacre". That was another 1996 mass shooting, this time in Australia. Know what the Ausie government did about it? Same thing the UK did after Dunblane. Know how many gun massacres Australia has had since? Zero.

Or look at Canada. A country which, much like the US, loves its guns. Unlike the US, however, they control them. And guess what Canada doesn't have happen regularly, that the US does? Gun massacres.

So please don't blandly assert that gun control can't work - the evidence suggests very clearly that it can and it does. Sure, in the US it might take twenty years to scrape the bulk of the illegal firearms out of the system, but since you're averaging gun massacres at a rate of more than two per year, perhaps it's time to stop claiming it won't work, and just get started.

Kodie:

I agree.

Besides, arguing about guns seems pointless. Especially since it is too late. Even now, there is no way gun control or reduction would work. There are too many out there. And heaven forbid anyone think about limiting their ability to fondle their precioussessssss.

Call me a fucking asshole, but I am not really touched by how many were killed or not killed. What matters more to me is why someone wanted to kill them, and doing something to care for those people before they snap or get them where they can't harm anyone before they do it. There will always be access to something deadly for people who want to kill people. Someone could just take a car and drive it into a crowd. Someone can mail diseases. There are sick fucks in this world who have moved beyond the point of no return and you care about guns.

I care about guns but not that much. It's a really sad country that can't take care of its people, who let them slip through the cracks, who let them walk the streets plotting to kill. Kill one person, kill 1000 people, it doesn't matter to me. Of course it might matter to those people. The way I reason this is from tragedies. I have been a singular victim and nobody cares. You do have to be in something famous and huge that gets a lot of people at once for anyone to notice and care. That's stupid and I hate it. One victim of a knife is too many, but you don't stop knives. You don't care if it's only one. That's fucked up.

Kodie: I agree. And I don't think gun safety education was the problem in this case. I do think it's the case with many accidental shootings. More importantly, it's an issue with a culture where discussing anything about guns is taboo. I was trying to find a common ground for discussion that even a gun owner would agree on. For any cultural change and openness on how to treat a gun, you'd need cooperation with the NRA. Otherwise it's a meaningless argument where no one listens.

Mental illness is also an important topic. We have a faulty cultural understanding of mental illness. We have a faulty system for support and treatment. Mental health care coverage is treated differently than other ailments. This makes no sense. It also makes no sense to me that one needs different policies to cover teeth and eyes, like they're not part of the body or something. There aren't enough psychiatrists to go around. Most psychiatric care is done by primary care docs. Many psychiatry residency programs are forced to fill with foreign grads because there aren't enough US grads interested in the specialty to fill the slots. This is for a few reasons. Many people aren't comfortable working with the dangerous types of psychotic mentally ill people, it doesn't pay as well as other specialties, it's a longer residency program than others with comparable salaries, you don't get to do much medicine-medicine that feels like what doctors are supposed to do. So the residencies fill with foreigners, who may be bright and capable, but don't know our culture in the way you'd need someone in that position to do it well. We also do not train enough PhD and PsyD psychologists, and leave most of the counseling positions to those with Master's. Now a 6 year degree may be fine for some talented practioners, but I'd rather see more of the type with full doctorates. Universities often don't have more than a handful of these PhD slots every year, but Master's are churned out in fairly good numbers. They are cheaper, and so more encouraged, but I'm not convinced it's enough training. Pills are easier to dispense than therapy with a psychologist well-trained in CBT or DBT or the therapy best-suited for a particular patient. Medication has dramatically improved the way we treat psychiatric ailments, but we still have a long way to go.

And yes, there is a huge difference between your sociopaths and psychotics compared to those with anxiety, mood, and developmental disorders.

Justice:

You should move to Kansas. Armed citizens have a right, nay a duty, to bring

"THEIR PRECIOUS"

ONTO SCHOOL PROPERTY.

And if only there been armed, hardened targets at the recent Portland Mall Shooting. Strong, upstanding Chuck Norrises whipping out their peni...oops, handguns and letting fly with the lead. Who cares if dozens were killed instead of a handful?

Oh come on, poor black people get shot and killed every day, and nobody gives a damn. But a few rich white people get shot and it's the end of Western Civilization. These sorts of random rampages are very rare, and the number of people killed in them is miniscule. How about setting some rational priorities for once? How about dealing with the underlying causes of violence in general, like poverty, drug abuse, and mental health? How about dealing with things that actually affect significant numbers of people?

Kessy....thanks for this blast of cold, rational logic.

You can pass all the laws you want. These were legally purchased weapons. Guns absolutely permeate American culture physically and emotionally. How can you "ban them"? That makes as much sense as nativist morons claiming that we can magically poof away all of the "illegal" immigrants.

Why do we have more gun violence than most countries? Because American culture is more disruptive, less conducive to strong communities. Even in relatively strong and traditional communities like this one. People are stressed out in modern society, and some snap. Add mental illness and poor treatment protocols and there will always be a few "crazy" people who just lose it. And then there is the sea of guns that they can dip into to satisfy their violent fantasies.

Automobiles kill and maim tens of thousands of people per year, with many people using their 3 tons of steel and plastic as weapons. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. Why not ban private cars?

Another thing:

I don't agree, necessarily, with how FO is expressing his opinion, and I don't understand his bringing leftist politics into it so baldly, but I have to admit that deep emotional attachment lies to people I know. Not children 3,000 miles away. That is another strange thing about our media suffused culture. The idea that we need to be intimate with strangers thousands of miles distant.

Some talking head actually stated "we have a need to know" about the details of cases like this. Why?

Uh -- Yuan

Custy-

You need to give the Chinese slasher some slack. He didn't have the advantage of a PKA (Peoples Knife Association) to advise him on the best selection and proper use of assault knives. And the China Knife lobby, meh~ totally ineffective waste of juan.

He'd have had better luck by doing a drive by poisoning or making the kids take a number for the strangulation line.

The only way the China incident is relevant is: Nobody died. That's the difference between knives and guns.

Here's some interesting reading on the subject:

Do we really need more laws?

This happened on the very same day in China.

A right or a privilege? Ask Reddit.

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.

America's Dunblane?

A CATO Institute article.

And a PDF of the book Tough Targets- When Criminals Face Armed Resistance From Citizens.

Disclaimer: The opinions and views are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect my own opinions and views!

The problem is that the shooter in this case had been taught gun safety. I tend to side on the side where guns are a kind of tool, I really do, but access to guns, gun safety lessons, etc., do not address what was in his head and why he thought to express himself in violence rather than stay home and watch Live with Kelly and Michael in his pajamas.

I'm not saying that's right either. I'm saying that's pretty much how I handle stress. Better mental health and more research and attention is needed. I read a pretty powerful article on Huffpo yesterday in which the mother of a 13-year-old problem child referred to him as a potential for a similar kind of disaster. The system is broken. A lot of the comments understood where she is coming from, but plenty were saying she was a lazy mother; or she is not "Adam Lanza's Mother" because she didn't keep guns around the house; or the boy needs a whipping; etc.

What I said the other day about people just blowing off other people seemed utterly exposed in the article - would go find it again..

The boy is just a boy, a boy's boy, he'll grow out of it, or he needs strict punishment, or whatever. He's weird, we don't like him already, and we're not going to do anything for him. He hasn't done anything yet. Except threaten his mother with a knife. It is hard for people to adjust their thinking. They don't want to think anything terrible about a boy who hasn't done anything yet, and the law can't accuse him of wrong-doing until he does something wrong. Then it's too late, then people might be dead, again. But don't over-react on the kid. I mean, that's how I'd feel if I were accused of being so disturbed. You're over-reacting. I'm weird but I'm gentle, except when I get angry. The whole thing about Mental Illness is that it covers a huge wide range of problems, only some of which can potentially be dangerous to others. Bringing it up at a time like this somehow only stigmatizes mental issues many of us have even more. It makes mental illness again something dangerous to look out for and not explain that is an extreme manifestation of only some illnesses in the category.

I feel like I'm suffering and my life is wasting away. Is that not worth a cure? Is that not worth research? I don't feel great. Everyone would benefit greatly from better access to better mental health treatments. You go in, some asshole listens to you whine for almost an hour, they say want some pills? Try some fucking pills. We are just guessing, we don't like you or know you or care, we just think pills pills pills. Pills help some people, but the way they just sort of seem to order them is half-assed. I don't feel like they are trying to figure out how to help me.

I feel like yeah, I am turning this into about me - I know my own experience with a severely deficient and careless system. It needs to be better for all of us. I do believe a gun is a tool like a car is, or a kitchen knife is, or a hammer, or a blow torch, but that most people in certain areas of the country think of it as a tool like alcohol or condoms - not for little children. Shield them and protect their innocence. The shooter not only had access to guns, he had been taught how to use them properly. So what now. What is the missing piece.

Noelle-

Any ideas on how to get out the information and education on good gun safety?

Schools- It may sound strange, but where else can you find that large a numbers of kids gathered around for the purpose of being educated? Perhaps make it mandatory. The classes would differ from a conventional gun class in that no actual guns would be involved. The purpose of the classes wouldn't be learning how to shoot a gun, but instead learning the dangers involved with them. Teach them history, provide statistics (yes zack, I understand how science is supposed to work, but I still hold true the fact that statistics are controversial), show videos, let cops or other experts give lectures, teach the laws, practice emergency procedures, etc.

Other methods like pamphlets, billboards, TV commercials and magazine adds, might help a little.

Kids these days are becoming so blasé regarding guns and shooting people by playing games like Grand Theft Auto and Halo. I have very mixed feelings about this. I'm not a big gamer, but I do like playing GTA San Andreas. Hundreds of "people" die every time I play the game by way of guns (a huge variety), bombs, rocket launchers, and vehicular manslaughter. Other choice weapons of homicide include, but are not limited to, flame throwers, grenades, knives, swords, clubs, bats, Molotov cocktails, brass knuckles, golf clubs, chainsaws, and more. The player can even just stomp someone to death if desired. Heads get blown-off and blood splatters and flows. And as a bonus, you get to rob the dead of all their money. It's all just part of the nature of the game.

What kind of messages are these games conveying to kids? According to THIS, more "people" have died inside the Halo games alone than have ever died in real life on earth throughout the entire history of mankind.

Again, I have very mixed feelings. Playing GTA has never tempted me want to kill or maim anyone in real life. Could it be my innate ability to differentiate fantasy from reality? What about those who have difficulty distinguishing between the two? Are these game used as practice for them?

I don't think banning these types of games is the answer, but also can't help but think that they may have the potential to promote negative behavior. I don't know what the solution should be.